ShortNews
+ + + 3 BRANDNEW NewsTickers for your Website! + + + easy configurable in less than 1 Minute + + + GET'EM NOW! + + +

   Home | Join | Submit News | MyShortNews | HighScores | FAQ'S | Forums 0 Users Online   
   
                 01/22/2018 03:39 AM  
  ShortNews Search
search all Channels
RSS feeds
  ShortNews User Poll
Are you excited about the holiday season?
  Latest Events
  3.158 Visits   7 Assessments  Show users who Rated this:
Quality:Very Good
Back to Overview  
02/07/2008 12:49 AM ID: 68294 Permalink   

White House: Bush Authorized Waterboarding

 

The day after CIA Director Michael Hayden first confirmed that U.S. intelligence officials waterboarded three suspected terrorists between 2002 and 2003, The White House has confirmed that President Bush authorized Hayden to allow the technique.

White House spokesman Tony Fratto explained, "This program and the techniques used in it were determined lawful through a process," with the legality "dependent on the circumstances." Senate Democrats have demanded a government investigation.

Hayden said that these interrogations yielded a quarter of US intelligence on al-Queda from 2002-2006. Fratto said for future waterboardings, the CIA director would discuss legality with the Attorney General, present the president with their plan.

 
  Source: washingtontimes.com  
    WebReporter: MomentOfClarity Show Calling Card      
  Recommendation:  
ASSESS this news: BLOCK this news. Reason:
   
  59 Comments
  
  Bush's  
 
misdirections and lies being exposed again. This wont be the end of it either.
 
  by: QuestioningAnswers   02/07/2008 01:14 AM     
  Misdirection  
 
These 'admissions' are designed to ameliorate the true depth and depravity of american torture practices. Many have been tortured to death. This includes beatings, shocks, and forced stress positions for days. The list is too long, and too nauseating, to consider in mixed company.(After all there are Republicans reading this). Just like 911, the mainstream media publishes bits and pieces to release pressure on a balloon of evidence. Don't forget, "America, Torture R US".
 
  by: IWMCB   02/07/2008 02:26 AM     
  @IWMCB  
 
"Many have been tortured to death"

Substantiate please.
 
  by: SoshiMaster   02/07/2008 05:51 AM     
  @SoshiMaster  
 
Maybe you've been living under a rock for a few years, just do a google search for deaths at guantanamo and see for yourself.

If this where a normal prison it would be closed and a number of staff would be under criminal investigation. However because its the army and their in a state of war, it's all o.k.
 
  by: sparky_fox   02/07/2008 09:41 AM     
  @sparky  
 
As far as I can tell, about 8 inmates have allegedly been tortured to death, however most of those deaths are ruled suicides, which is not the same thing.

In any case, 8 out of between 450 and 600 is not "many" by any stretch of the word.
 
  by: SoshiMaster   02/07/2008 09:54 AM     
  sparky_fox  
 
beat me to it I was just doing that .... takes about 15 seconds but yeah ...you would have to be living under a Rock (especially in Australia where this sort of thing is widely covered in the media )

http://www.cbsnews.com/...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/...
http://www.commondreams.org/...
http://www.medscape.com/...
http://12thharmonic.net/...
http://intellibriefs.blogspot.com/...
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/...
http://www.humanrightsfirst.info/...
 
  by: Hugo Chavez     02/07/2008 09:56 AM     
  also  
 
If you want to really see how deep the rabbit hole goes as far as prisoner treatment is concerned check out "Afghan Convoy of Death" (I'm pretty sure it's on youtube)

Also has anyone seen "Taxi to the Darkside" I haven't seen it yet but the trailer looks interesting
 
  by: Hugo Chavez     02/07/2008 10:02 AM     
  @SoshiMaster  
 
600 babies use Brand A baby powder.
8 die because of it.

Many babies died of Brand A baby powder. Too many babies. Immediate action is taken. Brand A baby powder is recalled.
 
  by: Ec5618   02/07/2008 10:12 AM     
  @ec  
 
No, see, that's a 'few' babies. Or several, or a number of. It is not "many", "most", "a lot", or "a majority".
 
  by: SoshiMaster   02/07/2008 11:09 AM     
  Afghan Convoy of Death  
 
never received as much out-cry in the UK as I would have expected. In terms of events, it's comparable with some of the things which happened in Nazi Germany. Certainly the mass extermination side of things, albeit on a much smaller scale.

Scary how close we are to repeating such an awful part of history...
 
  by: Maxx20     02/07/2008 12:43 PM     
  @SoshiMaster  
 
Here is something perfect for you:

http://www.smh.com.au/...

That substantiate the claims?
 
  by: slavefortheman     02/07/2008 04:56 PM     
  @Bush Authorized Waterboarding  
 
Bush authorized the waterboarding of Khalid Sheik Mohammed who designed the attack that killed 3K+ of us? That's a real crying shame, guaranteed to get any bedwetting liberal's pink panties in bunch.

http://www.miamiherald.com/...
 
  by: Soylent Sauce     02/07/2008 04:58 PM     
  @Soylent Sauce  
 
Laws prohibit torture in all cases, not only in cases in which the victim isn't a bad guy.
 
  by: Ec5618   02/07/2008 05:28 PM     
  Bush is nothing more than a possible fall guy  
 
He is as dumb as a rock and... Wait I just insulted rocks everywhere...

Anyhow I think he is just a puppet and the fall guy in the event that anyone actually does go down.
 
  by: slavefortheman     02/07/2008 05:39 PM     
  @Ec  
 
But thats where the problem appears

"Laws prohibit torture in all cases"

What law?
 
  by: AnsweringQuestions     02/07/2008 05:44 PM     
  @Soylent & Others  
 
Agreed. Given the degree of their crimes, I'd say waterboarding was mild retribution. If it were me, I would have suggested they be put into a meat grinder feet first... *very* slowly.


@Others
The three that were waterboarded released names and information that accounted for 25% of the CIA key intelligence on Al Qaeda. Thousands of lives were saved and much destruction was averted because of it.

How some of you weigh that the murder of thousands is on a lesser scale than a guy experiencing simulated drowning is amazing. And backwards.

Had they perpetrated these crimes on any other country, they would have gotten thumb screws, whipped, beaten, and mutilated.
They're fortunate we only waterboarded them.
 
  by: CArnold     02/07/2008 06:28 PM     
  @CArnold  
 
"Had they perpetrated these crimes on any other country, they would have gotten thumb screws, whipped, beaten, and mutilated.
They're fortunate we only waterboarded them."

They would? So if they had done this in Austria, Norway or New Zealand that would have been the punishment?

No?

Ahh.. Now I get it! You must mean that if they had done it to any third world dictatorship they would have gotten the thumb screws etc.
Guess that's the difference between you and me. Unlike you I want to compare the USA with the first world! Civilized democracies and not the kind of countries where the population usually lives in poverty and in fear of their own government
 
  by: aljo4025   02/07/2008 06:40 PM     
  They was once a boy called Billy lair  
 
I think they should now drop the Bush name, liar is more fitting.
 
  by: captainJane     02/07/2008 06:41 PM     
  @aljo4025  
 
“So if they had done this in Austria, Norway or New Zealand that would have been the punishment?”
You’re speaking in a hypothetical sense. Was either of those countries attacked? If they had been, what do you think they would have done to such criminals? Put them in a vacation resort and cater to their every need? I hardly think so.

Sidenote: Austria has had its own share of torture incidents. A Nigerian man had resisted arrest and was tortured because of it and later died from his injuries.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/...


“Unlike you I want to compare the USA with the first world!”
Then compare them with other countries that have faced similar attacks and incidents. What were the responses of *those* countries? Russia? Malaysia? Thailand?
Those aren’t 3rd world counties. And they’re not governed by dictators (however, Putin is really dancing on that line).

Compare apples to apples. Not oranges to kangaroos.

It’s really easy to criticize others for making tough decisions on precarious or sensitive topics, but the landscape changes considerable when you’re the one in the chair making those decisions. As was noted earlier, 25% of the intelligence came from these 3 guys only *after* being waterboarded.

Tell me, aljo4025… What would suggest if you had a criminal of the same caliber as these guys and that criminal possessed information that could save hundreds or thousands of lives? *But* that criminal wasn’t forthcoming with information and refused to willingly provide information that could save those lives.

How would you procure that information? Would you decide that saving thousands of lives wasn’t worth giving someone the sensation of drowning?

“Guess that's the difference between you and me.”
Gotta agree with you on that. There are those that passively deal with issues, and there are those that are more proactive in dealing with them and attempt to prevent them from happening again.

While I think that your view is one that is ideal in a perfect world, it’s not one that is ideal in a realistic world.
 
  by: CArnold     02/07/2008 07:18 PM     
  @AnsweringQuestions  
 
"What law?"

How about the 8th Amendment to the US Constitution for starters.
 
  by: slavefortheman     02/07/2008 08:00 PM     
  @slavefortheman  
 
"How about the 8th Amendment to the US Constitution for starters."

The US Constitution is applicable to only US citizens. The scum that were waterboarded weren't US citizens. If they had ever visited the US, they would have choked on the sweet air of freedom.
 
  by: CArnold     02/07/2008 08:08 PM     
  @CArnold  
 
Since this was performed on US soil then 3 different laws would apply.

Military Codes of Conduct Section 5, the 8th Amendment of the US Constitution, and also Part 1 Article 3 of the 4th Geneva Convention.

2 of the 3 are violations of federal law and the 3rd is a violation of military laws.

Either way you can be punished in accordance with some form of US laws.
 
  by: slavefortheman     02/07/2008 08:18 PM     
  @U 2 Tubes  
 
AQ: You constantly amaze me with your two sided drumming. If a Sheikh would denounce this, with his own rhetorics of equal violence, you would sensationalize this, as 'Them backward, <deleted by admin>'
Then you come up with this
"
misdirections and lies being exposed again. This wont be the end of it either." sometimes, you are capable of thinking outside your the BOX..

@CaRNold: "The scum that were waterboarded weren't US citizens.
Omar Khadr, is Canadian. My spineless of a country is turning a blind eye, for one reason only. He is Muslim.

You on the other hand is that Country, that is torturing one of your neighbours.
"If they had ever visited the US, they would have choked on the sweet air of freedom." Canada is one on top of your country, with, better health care and freedom, many of your country's pundits, would like to emulate.
You must be the Scumbag, with niche for terror and torture and hide behind that mask "Land of freedom" while, all along you have a noose, around your neck, to drag you where ever Bush wants you to go.. I am also glad that, you still have that Cowbell around your neck. I can hear you miles away.
 
  by: isuzu     02/07/2008 08:37 PM     
  @slavefortheman  
 
"Since this was performed on US soil then 3 different laws would apply."

1st - Cuba isn't US Soil

2nd - The Geneva Convention is not applicable to these detainees. We SNers had a debate on this issue last year.

"Either way you can be punished in accordance with some form of US laws."
The courts have said that the US gov't cannot allow their prisoners to have no protections and ordered the Admin to offer basic protections as stipulated within the Geneva Convention.

Note: The court's ruling was not an interpretation of the Geneva Convention, nor did it say that the GC was applicable to them. It merely said that the Admin needs to give them the basic protections as mentioned in the GC and not allow their status to be held in "limbo". We have done this.
 
  by: CArnold     02/07/2008 08:51 PM     
  LOL @ isuzu  
 
Heh.

Another intellectual comment from bowels of isuzu.

This is an adult conversation. If you're bore and need something to do, visit this site:
http://www.Disney.com


I think they have a page dedicated to teaching children manners. Have someone help read it to you.
 
  by: CArnold     02/07/2008 08:55 PM     
  @CArnold  
 
As you well know, Cuba contains US soil. Embassies.

And as you well know, the Geneva Convention was designed to prevent inhumane treatment of people in general, not just soldiers.
 
  by: Ec5618   02/07/2008 08:56 PM     
  @CArnold  
 
"The three that were waterboarded released names and information that accounted for 25% of the CIA key intelligence on Al Qaeda."

I hope no one is being naive enough to assume that these were the only three, just because these are the ones the White House felt it could safely acknowledge. Further, there's nothing here about the QUALITY of the information provided, just the quantity...which is the problem with information obtained through torture. What's the measure of determining if the torture is worthwhile? EVERYONE will talk when their life is threatened, whether they speak the truth is another matter. I don't think most people concern themselves with this, though, because the unspoken reason for supporting waterboarding is because they like the idea of revenge.

"You’re speaking in a hypothetical sense. Was either of those countries attacked? If they had been, what do you think they would have done to such criminals?"

As a nation, we need to educate ourselves to the fact that we're not the first and sole victims of terrorism, acting like the teenager who whines, "You just don't know what I'm going through! You can't understand!" Plenty of first-world nations have been attacked in the last couple decades, that's not "hypothetical." How many of them are drawing a dark (yet rather wavy) line between those with them or against them, bending laws both national and international left and right, and setting up secret prisons and torture programs?

"Sidenote: Austria has had its own share of torture incidents. A Nigerian man had resisted arrest and was tortured because of it and later died from his injuries."

And the policemen responsible are being charged, not being lauded for their actions. The next policemen in line for their jobs aren't going around talking how they'll torture three to five times as many people. Oranges and kangaroos, indeed.
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     02/07/2008 08:56 PM     
  @Ec5618  
 
“As you well know, Cuba contains US soil. Embassies.”
Guantanamo isn’t an Embassy. It’s a base on Cuban soil.

“And as you well know, the Geneva Convention was designed to prevent inhumane treatment of people in general, not just soldiers.”
Yes. I’m very aware of this. They offer protection for civilians and soldiers. These guys certainly weren’t mere civilians.

The 1949 Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war defines PoWs as “members of the armed forces captured during a conflict, or: Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, … provided that such militias or volunteer corps … fulfil the following conditions”:

-That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
-That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
-That of carrying arms openly;
-That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Hence, they don’t fall under the category of PoW. They’ve created an entire category for themselves: Coward Scum Enemy Combatants. The GC doesn’t make a place for them.
 
  by: CArnold     02/07/2008 09:12 PM     
  @MoC  
 
“I hope no one is being naive enough to assume that these were the only three…[ The rest of the paragraph is sheer supposition and assumptions.]”
And I hope that no one feels omnipotent and feel that they can usurp the claims without evidence or proof of otherwise. To do so only lends itself to paranoid tin-hat conspiracy-theory style thinking.

“As a nation, we need to educate ourselves to the fact that we're not the first and sole victims of terrorism…”
I’ve already covered that.

“How many [first-world nations] are drawing a dark (yet rather wavy) line between those with them or against them, bending laws both national and international left and right, and setting up secret prisons and torture programs?”
How many? Or which ones? Specify that question for me and I’ll get back with you on that.

“And the policemen responsible are being charged, not being lauded for their actions.”
I should hope so. They tortured and killed someone for resisting arrest --- not someone who has killed or was plotting to kill thousands of innocent civilians.

“Oranges and kangaroos, indeed.”
Indeed. Comparing cops torturing a civilian and waterboarding terrorists are more along the lines of oranges and comets.
 
  by: CArnold     02/07/2008 09:22 PM     
  @slavefortheman  
 
That's one.
 
  by: SoshiMaster   02/07/2008 09:31 PM     
  @CArnold  
 
I can argue against your argument.

The case of the UNITED STATES of America v. Usama BIN LADEN, April 20, 2000.

The case showed that bin Laden was the leader of Al Qaeda and was prosecuted under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

As such, Al Qaeda could be considered a Militia or Other Volunteer Corps. Therefore they are technically by our own laws, POWs and should be treated as such under the Geneva Conventions.
 
  by: slavefortheman     02/07/2008 09:51 PM     
  @slavefortheman  
 
Uh, no. See, you have to meet ALL of the those criteria, not just one of them:

Al Queda does not have a symbol or sign recognizable from a distance.

They do not carry weapons and arms openly.

They do not engage in battle according to the laws and customs of war.

They fail on at least 3 of the criteria and therefore do not fall under PoW status.
 
  by: SoshiMaster   02/07/2008 09:57 PM     
  @slavefortheman  
 
"The case showed that bin Laden was the leader of Al Qaeda and was prosecuted under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)."

It's worth noting that the date the warrant was issued was before 9/11 and when Clinton was in office. I believe that Saudi Arabia advised Clinton that they had Bin Laden and would extradite him, but Clinton told them not to worry about it.

"As such, Al Qaeda could be considered a Militia or Other Volunteer Corps. Therefore they are technically by our own laws, POWs and should be treated as such under the Geneva Conventions."

Look at the conditions I listed.

"-That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance"
i.e. Uniforms. They don't wear anything that signifies their affiliation to the Taliban. Even the Minutemen and Volunteers during the US Revolutionary War wore uniforms to distinguish themselves from civilians. Most these uniforms were home-made, but they wore them, none-the-less.

"-That of carrying arms openly"
Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't.

"-That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war."
This one totally blows them out of the water. Their violations of this term is too numerable to list.


You must abide by all conditions. You can't pick and choose which ones you will follow.
 
  by: CArnold     02/07/2008 10:02 PM     
  @SoshiMaster  
 
The FBI recognizes al Qaeda as an organization and has already had a trial in this regards.

Also I can argue that in many cases even the US itself does not adhere to these laws.

According to the Bush admin, they report directly to Bin Laden and his associates.

A "distinctive sign" is a very vague reference. I can be wearing an armband and this could be considered my sign.

The Muajadeen wear headscarf's that cover their entire face. This could be argued is their symbol and is in fact very visible.

They carry arms openly.

The last criteria is also very vague. They function as military units and alongside other military type militias such as the Taliban.

That should qualify them to be considered POW's.

So they fail in none of the criteria.

You may say something to the affect that they do not treat prisoners well. That can also be argued of the US and as such we should not consider the US to be following the laws of war and it is therefore legal to torture US personnel captured as well.

If you apply a double standard then you must be prepared for the worst. US personnel can and will be tortured as a result of this. Not that they probably wouldn't in either event but it does offer an excuse to do so.
 
  by: slavefortheman     02/07/2008 10:13 PM     
  @CArnold  
 
Even the term "Enemy Combatants" refers to a combat state and that in itself makes them applicable as a military unit.
 
  by: slavefortheman     02/07/2008 10:16 PM     
  When all is said and done  
 
We are limited to two sets of laws.

Civilian and or Military. You must prosecute these individuals under these laws or else you are in violation of your own laws.
 
  by: slavefortheman     02/07/2008 10:21 PM     
  @slavefortheman  
 
Stop trying to bend the criteria to fit your desires.

It has to be a distinct sign recognizable from a distance. An armband is insufficient.
Many militiant organisations wear head scarfs wrapped around their faces to hide their identity. Palestinian youths throwing rocks do. This hardly qualifies as a distinctive uniform or a sign recognisable from a distance.

They do not carry arms openly. They hide among the general populace. Their primary weapons are IEDs and suicide bombers. This is not carrying arms openly. They might tout their guns and grenade launchers at their training camps, but they do not wear them visibly. If they get attacked, or trapped in a fire-fight, that's when they pull the weaponry out of their robes.

There are certain laws and customs of battle - suicide bombings are not included.

You can try and twist the way the treaty was drafted to fit your desires, but that's all it is. Twisting.

The Geneva rules were specifically drafted to not include militant organisations that act and attack in the manner that Al Queda, and the insurgent forces in Iraq do.
 
  by: SoshiMaster   02/07/2008 10:22 PM     
  Impeachment?  
 
Clinton got impeached because he got his dingaling waterboarded, and then lied about it.

Bush...? gah! I am in a good mood, don't want to spoil. I stop talking now.
 
  by: theironboard     02/07/2008 10:27 PM     
  @slavefortheman  
 
The GC is very clear in it's definitions of the items you have described. I simply gave a nutshell version of Article 4 of the Geneva Convention. For a more precise overview, I suggest reading the GC, itself. The preface of the GC provides definitions of how the words are used throughout the GC.

This is a link to GC Article 4. There is a link to the preface that gives all the definitons used within it.

http://usmilitary.about.com/...


Hope this helps.

I've got to take off for a while, but I'll be back to rejoin the discussion later this evening.

 
  by: CArnold     02/07/2008 10:27 PM     
  @SoshiMaster  
 
Im not bending anything. You tell me where in the law it says what specific signs to use? It doesnt. You have to invent them yourself. There is no text specifying SoshiMaster's criteria for what qualifies as valid symbols in warfare as fas as I can see.

If you know anything about laws is that they are meant to be interpreted unless they are specific in nature. These laws are not therefore you have to interpret them.

Therefore my assumptions on symbols fitting their criteria do in fact fit.

Tell me how you can fit an AK47 under your shirt?

Also IED is just the same as a mine or a triggered explosive that OUR military uses every day:

http://en.wikipedia.org/...

I can also argue the same to you. You are doing nothing but twisting it to fit your own personal definitions. I am placing an idea within the framework.

You however are not. Your terms are specific and do not fit the terms of the convention. Trust me I know a few things about law. I studied it for several years.
 
  by: slavefortheman     02/07/2008 10:30 PM     
  @CArnold  
 
See you later. Love debating things with you.

I have read the articles. They are still very vague. They were probably written that way so legal scholars or judges/lawyers could interpret them as time/circumstances changed.

However I do not see these criteria as being outside the definition of what defines a POW.

Now if you cannot argue that they are POWs then I suggest they prosecuted under civilian laws. This is where the US constitution comes into play and also hundreds of other laws that protect their civilian rights.

PS: Took several law classes in college. Didnt like it though and ended up being an engineer since I liked tinkering with things more LOL!
 
  by: slavefortheman     02/07/2008 10:36 PM     
  Either way  
 
Bush committed a very serious crime. Whether or not people want to admit it does not matter. He himself is directly responsible for these crimes.

We can debate all day if they are POW or civilians. Personally I do not care how you decide. You can flip a coin for all I care.

At the end of the day it all comes down to there being a trial of these suspects.

Also to charge Bush with either war crimes in violation of violating civilian rights, POW rights or possibly both depending on each individuals status.

Basically 2 things need to happen:

1) These individuals need to be charged as POW's or Civilians.

2) Bush needs to be brought up on charges for his torture of these people.

Its very simple.
 
  by: slavefortheman     02/07/2008 10:45 PM     
  hmm  
 
quite comical...

The common argument of neo-cons: we went there to remove a fascist dictator that imprisoned, tortured, and kill enemies without a trial by fair representation.

And here comes the Bush administration occupying that sovereign nation and claiming liberation by establishing the moral high ground and doing... wait a sec...

lets go to the check list:
- Imprisoned
- Tortured
- Killed
- No trial by fair representation

Isn't that the exact same list as what the fascist dictator that we removed, did?

Are there any neo-cons on here that still claim we're there to establish the moral high ground?

It seems as through what we preach and what we do are quite simply, two different things.

Can the neo-cons explain how this formula will work to pacify the nation we occupy and bring stability to the region?
 
  by: ukcn001XYZ   02/07/2008 10:57 PM     
  @slave  
 
Can you recognise an Al Queda fighter from a distance, and distinguish them from a civilian? No.

Al Queda and insurgents don't usually wear shirts - the western style of dress is not particularly suited to the environment. They wear the arabic/middle eastern robes that most of the rest of the populace wears.

You WANT these prisoners to be classified as PoWs, therefore you are searching for justifications to do so. I don't really care whether they are or aren't. I do however object to people stretching points to try and meet their aims. Like saying "many" when what they really mean is "a few". Or saying Prisoner of War, when what they mean is terrorist or enemy combatant.
 
  by: SoshiMaster   02/07/2008 11:41 PM     
  @ukcn  
 
It's simple. They'll run out of men, and morale, before the US does.

Look at the attrition rates on both sides.
 
  by: SoshiMaster   02/07/2008 11:48 PM     
  @SoshiMaster  
 
Again you are stretching things too. You either have military or civilians. This is clearly defined in law. There is no gray area. Civilians however can be tried in accordance with military laws if they are of a threatening manner. This is the case. Therefore they should be tried as civilians.

Im not stretching anything at all. I am simply putting what is fact into the existing framework laid down by the conventions and the laws of war.

These individuals when captured on the battlefield are generally dressed regular civilian clothes except for one exception. They all wear headscarf's that cover their entire face and head. This easily distinguishes them as fighters. If you cant tell the difference then you must be blind. I can see features such as this on a person from at least several hundred meters.

Also the idea of a group of armed militia covering a large area is easily identifiable as a military or militia force. Just that sight of a group of armed individuals in itself is identifiable to any military personnel as an opposing group.

On the other hand if the individual was captured while not functioning in this capacity this could present another issue entirely. They would be civilians and would need to be either charged as such.

Like I said. Either way you will need to charge them under our military laws or under civilian laws.

If they are military laws then you must treat them as POWs. If they are civilian laws then they are protected by the constitution.
 
  by: slavefortheman     02/08/2008 12:02 AM     
  @slavefortheman  
 
No it's not. Where do you get that poppycock??

Do you even know the meaning of "military"?

mil·i·tar·y /?m?l??t?ri/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mil-i-ter-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, noun, plural -tar·ies, -tar·y.
–adjective
1. of, for, or pertaining to the army or armed forces, often as distinguished from the navy: from civilian to military life.
2. of, for, or pertaining to war: military preparedness.
3. of or pertaining to soldiers.
4. befitting, characteristic of, or noting a soldier: a military bearing.
5. following the life of a soldier: a military career.
6. performed by soldiers: military duty.
–noun
7. the military,
a. the military establishment of a nation; the armed forces.
b. military personnel, esp. commissioned officers, taken collectively: the bar, the press, and the military.

Can you see how terrorist organisations do not actually fall into the category of "Military"?

mil·i·tant /?m?l?t?nt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mil-i-tuhnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. vigorously active and aggressive, esp. in support of a cause: militant reformers.
2. engaged in warfare; fighting.
–noun
3. a militant person.
4. a person engaged in warfare or combat.

See how it says nothing about "military" in there? You know why? It's because aside from sharing a common language root, they have nothing to do with each other.

And heck, militants and militia are two differnet things too.



 
  by: SoshiMaster   02/08/2008 12:12 AM     
  @slavefortheman  
 
Actually, another bit of misinformation from you. I'm not sure where you getting the belief that Al Queada and insurgent fighters are using headscarfs to disguise themselves, because they aren't. Except in videos where they are threatening to behead a captive.

Why? Because they are using guerilla tactics and it's kind of easy to spot a person dressed like shirt-ninja. It'd be really nice if they would actually identify themselves as Al Queda and insurgents, that would make hunting them down and stopping the suicide bombers so much easier.
 
  by: SoshiMaster   02/08/2008 12:17 AM     
  @CArnold  
 
"[ The rest of the paragraph is sheer supposition and assumptions.]”

That was an artless dodge of the tough questions. It's "supposition" to remind people that torture's efficacy and the answers it yields are highly questionable? That was commonly regarded a decade ago, what proof can you offer that anything's changed? Just because we need a solution doesn't mean bad ideas become good ones. I hardly think it's "assumption" to note that there's nothing on the actual quality of the information these men provided, either. Read the source, there's not, and there's a lot of space between the lines of what Hayden and Frotto have said.

"And I hope that no one feels omnipotent and feel that they can usurp the claims without evidence or proof of otherwise."

We've all discussed waterboarding used on lesser villains than these, so let's not talk about this as if now that the White House has come clean about these guys, the matter is closed. They may be the Administration's best example, but they're not the end of the story.

"To do so only lends itself to paranoid tin-hat conspiracy-theory style thinking."

And accepting any questionable action as being justifiably against terrorists when no such thing has been proven doesn't feed a racist, jackbooted nationalistic mentality?

“I’ve already covered [that other nations have terrorism]."

But have you considered it? Your comments portray what we've done as some kind of obvious and necessary response to a threat never before encountered. Others have encountered it, how many have thrown a previously positive reputation and human rights record out the window in response?

“How many? Or which ones? Specify that question for me and I’ll get back with you on that."

I count one, but perhaps you miss the point. Since you infer that other Western nations WOULD act as we have if they were attacked, and we've agreed plenty have been, why don't you cite a few examples of other nations who've treated their suspects so badly? I thought that was what you were trying to get at with Austria...

"I should hope [the policemen are being tried]. They tortured and killed someone for resisting arrest --- not someone who has killed or was plotting to kill thousands of innocent civilians...Comparing cops torturing a civilian and waterboarding terrorists are more along the lines of oranges and comets."

So why did you bring it up?
 
  by: MomentOfClarity     02/08/2008 12:39 AM     
  @SoshiMaster  
 
Have you looked at the US deficit lately? Since the invasion we've increased the deficit by nearly 3 trillion.

And have you seen the proposed bush budget being pushing through before he's out of office? It's 3 trillion with half a trillion going to the pentagon.

Outsourcing this privatized war to halliburton and friends has made this one of the most costly wars in history.

Have you looked at the value of the dollar lately, it's collapsing and we're falling into a recession.

Connect the dots. How do you think this thing is being funded?

No taxes are being raised and the chinese stopped borrowing us money a long time ago. We have to print money to pay for the war. That means a surplus of new USDs are flowing into the world market.

This devalues our currency, not to mention the effect of the Feds tinkering with interest rates.

The longer we stay there the more instable our currency gets.

If you understand history, you would understand that the middle east has a long history of occupation, dating back to the time of Christ.

They've held on against occupational forces that lasted hundreds of years.

They will surely outlast our occupation.

All they need to do is let us keep spending money we don't have, eventually our USD will be chipped away until our economy destabilizes and we fall into a recession.

This multi-trillion dollar war isn't free, someone is paying for it. They aren't raising taxes so we're not paying for it now. But rest assure yourself, we will have to pay that tab w/interest.
 
  by: ukcn001XYZ   02/08/2008 01:18 AM     
  @ukc  
 
What does that have to do with it?

The battle in Iraq is just the first step in a war to shatter the control of the OPEC alliance on supply and distribution and pricing of oil, and to ensure the USA's continued and ready access to it.

So? What does that have to do with whether we are dealing with terrorists or prisoners of war?
 
  by: SoshiMaster   02/08/2008 01:23 AM     
  @ukc  
 
The greatest occupying force in the history of the Middle East is the Ottoman Empire, an empire that firmly and finally consolidated the hold of Islam.
 
  by: SoshiMaster   02/08/2008 01:26 AM     
  Torture is good!  
 
"A day will come when a cannon will be exhibited in museums, just as instruments of torture are now, and the people will be astonished that such a thing could have been."
-Victor Hugo

"There will one day spring from the brain of science a machine or force so fearful in its potentialities, so absolutely terrifying, that even man, the fighter, who will dare torture and death in order to inflict torture and death, will be appalled, and so abandon war forever."
- Thomas A. Edison

The only problem Mr. Hugo and Mr. Edison is that people still aren't yet appalled or astonished enough. Their minds continue to be controlled by popular opinion.






Torture is a crime against humanity. Same as war.

Only the ignorant think differently.
 
  by: QuestioningAnswers   02/08/2008 01:56 AM     
  @QA  
 
Nah. It's not popular opinion.

The only people who are truly appalled and horrified are those that are neither too distant nor too close.

Terrorism is also a crime against humanity. So which is worse?
 
  by: SoshiMaster   02/08/2008 02:21 AM     
  SoshiMaster  
 
Yes, war is caused by popular opinion. If not, war would not happen because it would either not be allowed or no-one would fight in it.

Terrorism is just another form of war. A form which a tank is replaced by a a human strapped with bombs and the stealth bomber is replaced by the hijacked aircraft. All in all, terrorism is the way the poor person wages war.
 
  by: QuestioningAnswers   02/08/2008 02:45 AM     
  @QA  
 
No. Terrorism is a war waged against unarmed and defenceless civilians. It's not just "another form".

Nor did I say war was not caused by popular opinion. I said that popular opinion has littled to do with whether a person is appalled by torture or not.

It is not a soldier's place to choose the wars he fights in, and the arenas he is deployed to. Yes, there was a definite need for public approval in order to marshal and deploy the US army, that wasn't even debated.
 
  by: SoshiMaster   02/08/2008 02:55 AM     
  Soshi  
 
"Terrorism, in the modern sense,[2] is violence, the threat of violence, or other harmful acts committed for political or ideological goals.[3]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/...


War: "an active struggle between competing entities"

http://wordnet.princeton.edu/...



"I said that popular opinion has littled to do with whether a person is appalled by torture or not."

Sure it does. The person is born. The person is taught (the teachings tending to be the popular opinion of the time). The person then believes that popular opinion is the correct one. The person then tends to be appalled by things contrary to that popular opinion and sees them as incorrect.
 
  by: QuestioningAnswers   02/08/2008 03:12 AM     
  @QA  
 
No it doesn't.

I was born. I was taught. I still came to my own decisions.

Fact is, the only people who are appalled are those that are neither too distant, nor too close.

People who are too distant don't have the emotional investment to be appalled.

People who are too close are too involved to be appalled.

It's only that middle span that are.

The torturer applying torture understands that what he is doing is both evil and necessary. He can neither afford to be appalled, nor forget that the information he extracts may save hundreds or thousands of lives.

The person being tortured is too busy enduring and suffering to be something so blase` as appalled.

The very word "appalled" is indeterminate - a passive expression of disgust.
 
  by: SoshiMaster   02/08/2008 03:24 AM     
  Soshi  
 
"Fact is, the only people who are appalled are those that are neither too distant, nor too close."

I don't disagree with that (possibly besides "only") and wasn't disagreeing with that part in the first place. I am essentially saying that popular opinion has a direct impact on the distance. In fact, it may very well define it.

On that aspect we are essentially saying the same thing in different ways.
 
  by: QuestioningAnswers   02/08/2008 03:39 AM     
 
 
Copyright ©2018 ShortNews GmbH & Co. KG, Contact: info@shortnews.com